You are here: / Municipal Law
,

NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission Had the Authority to Mandate the Use of a Particular Vehicle as a NYC Taxi

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, over a dissent, determined that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) did not exceed its grant of authority under the NYC Charter and did not violate the separation of powers doctrine when it mandated the use of a particular vehicle for taxis in NYC. The TLC essentially designed a vehicle, to be used as New York City medallion taxicabs, which met all of its criteria and then chose a manufacturer, Nissan, to build it. Under the “Taxi of Tomorrow Rules…”, after October 31, 2013, holders of unrestricted medallions who  were scheduled to replace their taxi vehicles were required to buy the Nissan (called the Nissan NV200).  An association of taxi fleet owners brought an action for a declaratory judgment asking the court to find the “Taxi of Tomorrow Rules…” invalid. Supreme Court did so, holding that the TLC had exceeded its powers under the NYC Charter and had essentially crossed the line between administration and legislation. The First Department disagreed and reversed:

Ultimately, the key to determining whether an agency has exceeded the scope of its authority is …in examining the enabling legislation. The scope of the mandate established by City Charter § 2300 is sufficiently expansive to permit the TLC to act as it did. * * *

…[H]ere …the Legislature had clearly articulated its policy regarding the TLC’s assigned task, namely, the goal of ensuring and optimizing the comfort of riders, while protecting the public, the environment, the drivers, and the rights of medallion owners. The TLC was not left to take action based on its own ideas of sound public policy. Even if, arguendo, the TLC’s adoption of the revised Taxi of Tomorrow rules may be characterized as involving policy-making, here, the parameters of that policy-making were set by the City Council in the City Charter.  Greater NY Taxi Assn v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn, 2014 NY Slip Op 04156, 1st Dept 6-10-14

 

, ,

City Employee Blocking Roadway to Facilitate Repairs Was Engaged in a Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function–Ordinary Rules of Negligence Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the appellate division, finding that a city employee was acting in a proprietary, not a governmental, capacity when he told the plaintiff she could proceed on a roadway that he was closing for repairs but did not warn her of the depression in the roadway which caused her to fall.  The question came down to whether the employee was performing a road repair (proprietary) or a traffic control (governmental) function.  Because the employee was deemed to be performing a proprietary function, the ordinary rules of negligence applied to the city:

We recently explained the framework that must be used when a negligence claim is asserted against a municipality in Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. (21 NY3d 420 [2013]). First, a court must decide “whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or acted in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose” (id. at 425). If the municipality's actions fall on the proprietary side, “it is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties”… . A governmental entity undertakes a proprietary role when its “activities essentially substitute for or supplement traditionally private enterprises” … . “In contrast, a municipality will be deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers” (id. [internal question marks and citation omitted]). Generally, “the distinction is that the government will be subject to ordinary tort liability if it negligently provided services that traditionally have been supplied by the private sector” … . In deciding whether a function is proprietary or governmental, a court examines “the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred . . . , not whether the agency involved is engaged generally in proprietary activity or is in control of the location in which the injury occurred” … .

Historically, the maintenance of roads and highways was performed by both private entities and local governments, with each subject to the ordinary rules of negligence… . Wittorf v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 04037, CtApp 6-5-14

 

, ,

Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations

The First Department explained that when a notice of termination of an at-will employee is ambiguous with respect to finality, the ambiguity is construed against the employer and the four-month statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding is not triggered:

Ordinarily, where the employment of an at-will employee, like petitioner, is terminated, the four-month statute of limitations applicable in article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217) begins to run from the date of the termination, notwithstanding the availability of optional administrative review proceedings … . However, where an administrative agency “create[s]; []; ambiguity and [the]; impression of nonfinality,” that ambiguity regarding finality is to be resolved against the agency … .

* * * We find that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter otherwise conveyed the concrete impact ordinarily associated with finality for statute of limitations purposes …, respondent created sufficient ambiguity as to finality such that the language must be construed against it and the petition must be deemed timely. Matter of Burch v New York City Health & Hosp Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04060, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

,

Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) properly ruled the town could not revoke its policy of providing vehicles for use by certain town employees pursuant to a provision of the Town Code. The town argued that it could unilaterally revoke the vehicle assignments because the provision which purported to allow the vehicle assignments was illegal (the dissent agreed).  The Court of Appeals held that the provision was not illegal and, therefore, any change in the vehicle assignment policy must be negotiated with the union:

…[T]he Town asks us to rule in its favor on the ground that a public employer does not violate section 209-a (1) (d) of the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law} when it unilaterally discontinues a past practice with respect to a term and condition of employment that is illegal under local law. Whatever the merits of the Town's position, we do not reach and need not consider them because the relevant past practice was not, in fact, illegal under the local law. Accordingly, PERB reasonably applied its precedent to determine that the Town engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally discontinued the permanent assignment of “take home” vehicles to employees who enjoyed this benefit before the Town adopted and implemented the 2008 fleet/vehicle policy, and PERB's determination was based on substantial evidence.  Matter of Town of Islip v New York State Pub Empl Relations Bd., 2014 NY Slip Op 04030, CtApp 6-5-14

 

, ,

Voluntary Firefighter Should Not Have Been Suspended Without a Hearing Pursuant to the General Municipal Law

The Second Department determined a voluntary firefighter was entitled to a hearing pursuant to the General Municipal Law.  The firefighter was suspended (without a hearing) for six months for acting in a disorderly manner in an a manner unbecoming a member of the fire department:

…[T]here is no merit to the appellants’ contention that they did not have to comply with the hearing requirements of General Municipal Law § 209-l because this matter did not involve the petitioner’s “removal” from the Fire Company. Subsection (3) of General Municipal Law § 209-l provides that:

“[r]emovals on the ground of incompetence or misconduct, except for absenteeism at fires or meetings, shall be made only after a hearing upon due notice and upon stated charges and with the right to such officer or member to a review pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. Such charges shall be in writing and may be made by any such authority. The burden of proving incompetency or misconduct shall be upon the person alleging the same.”

“[A] volunteer firefighter must be afforded due process in disciplinary proceedings” … . This is true whether the penalty that is ultimately imposed entails the firefighter’s permanent removal from his or her position, or a suspension from the position. As set forth in General Municipal Law § 209-l(5), “[t];he officer or body having the power to remove the person charged with incompetence or misconduct may suspend such person after charges are filed and pending disposition of the charges, and after the hearing may remove such person or may suspend him or her for a period of time not to exceed one year” (emphasis added). The plain meaning of this provision is that a volunteer firefighter may only be temporarily suspended, without a hearing, from the time that the charges are filed until the ultimate disposition of the charges, but that a hearing is required to actually dispose of the charges, and that a final penalty of suspension, not to exceed one year, may only be imposed after that hearing. Consequently, the appellants were required to comply with the procedures set forth in General Municipal Law § 209-l … . Matter of McEvoy v Oyster Bay Fire Co No 1, 2014 NY Slip Op 03688, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

, ,

Whether Color-Blind Bus Driver Should Be Given a Road Test to Determine Driving Abilities Was a Proper Subject of Arbitration Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement

The Second Department determined that whether a bus driver (Cruz), who had been found by a physician to be color-blind, should be given a road test to determine the safety of his driving was the proper subject of arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement.  The NYC Transit Authority (TA) argued that the driver should not undergo a road test and the physician should determine whether the driver met the vision requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law 509-g (1) and related regulations.  The union filed a grievance on behalf of the driver arguing the TA’s refusal to cooperate with the administration of the road test violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA):

In the public sector context, determining whether a grievance is arbitrable requires a court to first determine whether ” there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance'” … . If there is no prohibition against arbitration, then the court must determine “whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement” … .

Contrary to the TA’s contention, no statute or public policy absolutely prohibits an arbitrator from deciding whether Cruz should undergo a road test before it is determined whether Cruz meets the vision requirements. Moreover, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate this dispute is supported by the terms of the CBA. The relevant arbitration provisions of the CBA are broad, and there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA … . Any alleged ambiguity in the CBA as to whether the physician could recommend that Cruz undergo a road test ” is . . . a matter of contract interpretation for the arbitrator to resolve'” … .  Matter of New York City Tr Auth v Transport Workers Union of Greater NY Local 100, 2014 NY Slip Op 03689, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

,

City Administrative Code Provision Requiring a Building Owner to Maintain and Be Responsible for the Safe Condition of a Building Is Not Specific Enough to Form the Basis of Negligence Cause of Action

The Second Department determined plaintiffs did not raise a question of fact on a premises liability cause of action based upon alleged city administrative code violations, but did raise a question of fact concerning the building owner’s common law negligence.  Infant plaintiff fell over a railing on a landing to a set of stairs outside of the apartment building:

Administrative Code §§ 27-375 and 27-376 do not apply to the subject exterior stairs because the stairs were not [*2]”used as exits in lieu of interior stairs” (Administrative Code § 27-376…). “Exit” is defined by the Administrative Code as a “means of egress from the interior of a building to an open exterior space” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-232). The stairway was outside the parameters of the building and did not provide a means of egress from the interior of the building to an open exterior space … . Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that the stairs violated Administrative Code §§ 27-127 and 27-128 is without merit. Those sections “merely require that the owner of a building maintain and be responsible for its safe condition,” and do not constitute a sufficiently specific statutory predicate for liability … . In addition, Administrative Code § 17-123, which concerns window guards, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Friedman v 1953 Realty Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 03480, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

, ,

School District Owed No Duty of Care to Student Struck by Car Before School Bus Stopped to Pick Her Up/Bus Driver Had Missed Student’s Stop, Had Turned Around, and Was Driving Back Toward the Student When She Was Struck

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that a school district did not owe any duty to a student who was struck by a car before the bus stopped to pick her up.  The bus driver mistakenly drove past the stop where the student was waiting.  The driver turned the bus around.  As the driver was heading back toward the student's stop, the student was struck by a car. The Court of Appeals essentially agreed with the dissenting appellate division justices, whose position was described as follows:

The dissenting Justices would have reversed Supreme Court's order and granted the District's motion in its entirety. …[T]hey observed the “well settled” rule that the District's duty flowed from physical custody and control; that at the time of the accident the District did not have physical custody of the child, who thus remained outside its orbit of authority; and that the District therefore “owed no duty to the child in this situation, and, absent duty, there can be no liability” … .

The dissenting Justices rejected plaintiff's contention, endorsed by the majority, that the District “assumed a duty to the child as a consequence of the potentially hazardous situation allegedly created by the school bus driver in turning the bus around after missing the bus stop” … . Williams v Weatherstone, 2014 NY Slip Op 03425, CtApp 5-13-14

 

,

Release Time Certificates, Allowing Full Pay for Police Officers Doing Union Work, Properly Rescinded Based Upon the Indictment of the Officers

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissent, determined that police officers who were indicted in connection with a ticket-fixing scheme were properly denied Release Time certificates based upon the indictments.  Release Time certificates are issued by the Office of Labor Relations (OLR) pursuant to the Mayor’s Executive Order 75 (EO 75) and allow full-time leave with pay and benefits for union work:

The right of union-designated employees to be released from their job duties to perform union or joint labor-management activities is established in EO 75, which generally vests the City with broad oversight of employee representatives. Section 4(4) of EO 75 provides:

“Organizing, planning, directing, or participating in any way in strikes, work stoppages, or job actions of any kind, are excluded from the protection or coverage of this Order. Any employees assigned on a full or part-time basis or granted leave of absence without pay pursuant to this Order who participate in such excluded activity may have such status suspended or terminated by the City Director of Labor Relations.”

Section 4(10) provides: “Employees assigned on a full-time or part-time basis or granted leave without pay pursuant to this Order shall at all times conduct themselves in a responsible manner.” Section 5 provides that “[n]othing contained in this Order shall be deemed to have the effect of changing the character of any subject matter hereof which is a managerial prerogative and as a non-mandatory subject of collective bargaining.”

Enforcement of EO 75 is committed to the OLR Commissioner, who may issue implementing rules and regulations. The indictments of the individual petitioners on charges related to a ticket-fixing scheme that include allegations of grand larceny, official misconduct, tampering with public records, and criminal solicitation constitute a sufficient basis for the City to determine that the individual petitioners did not “at all times conduct themselves in a responsible manner” … . Accordingly, OLR was entitled to unilaterally rescind the Release Time certificates. Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn of the City of New York Inc v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03464, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

, ,

General Municipal Law 205-a and Strict Products Liability Causes of Action Brought by Firefighter Injured During a Fire Survive Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions

The Third Department determined motions for summary judgment by the owners of a building and the manufacturer of a device used to locate firefighters in an emergency were properly denied.  Plaintiff (Dryer) was a firefighter severely injured when a ceiling collapsed on him while he was searching for a fire within the building.  It was alleged the fire was related to violations of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the “PASS” device which was supposed to facilitate the locating of a firefighter malfunctioned.  Questions of fact were raised re: the General Municipal Law 205-a and strict products liability causes of action:

General Municipal Law § 205-a creates a statutory cause of action for firefighters who are injured in the line of duty “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any [federal, state or local] . . . statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements” (General Municipal Law § 205-a [1]…). “To fall within the protective scope of the statute and defeat a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff seeking recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-a must identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter” … . * * *

…[W]e [are not] persuaded that Supreme Court erred in denying the owners’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the General Municipal Law § 205-a cause of action. In this regard, the owners bore the initial burden of establishing either that they did not violate any relevant governmental provision or, if they did, that such violation did not directly or indirectly cause Dryer’s injuries … . The “directly or indirectly” language employed in General Municipal Law § 205-a “has been accorded broad application by the courts, ‘in light of the clear legislative intent to offer firefighters greater protections'” … . * * *

“In order to recover in a strict products liability action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant manufactured for sale, or sold, distributed, leased, or otherwise marketed a product, that the product was defective, that the plaintiff was injured and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the [plaintiff’s] injury” … . The requisite defect, in turn, may stem from “a manufacturing flaw, improper design or failure to warn” … . Dryer v Musacchio, 2014 NY Slip Op 02986, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy